If Intel were smart, they'd get their R&D department to develop a very powerful miner, and then run R&D as a self-funded enterprise.

Actually from an investment standpoint that'd be really stupid. A company as large as Intel can't afford to risk millions of dollars on R&D and waste precious foundry resources trying to money grab from Bitcoin, especially when their interaction alone could crash the currency because people would wonder if they can trust Intel.

Larger companies will become interested once Bitcoin is larger. Until then they won't touch it with a ten foot pole and I really don't blame them.

So Intel can't spend millions on something like bitcoin, but they can spend millions on lasers designed to move around individual atoms to make a stick person animation?Also, why could a large company getting involved with bitcoin mining crash the currency?

Also, why could a large company getting involved with bitcoin mining crash the currency?

Intel could too easily gain majority control of the network. No one would trust them and therefore move their money to another currency like Litecoin or Peercoin, thus crashing Bitcoin. Intel would have to completely redesign their chips to capture either of those markets, so I doubt after one investment sinkhole they'd try it again. Actually they wouldn't have to redesign the chips for Peercoin, but Peercoin's network punishes you for mining by lowering the reward as you keep going. Making large scale mining on Peercoin a bad investment.

Also, why could a large company getting involved with bitcoin mining crash the currency?

Intel could too easily gain majority control of the network. No one would trust them and therefore move their money to another currency like Litecoin or Peercoin, thus crashing Bitcoin. Intel would have to completely redesign their chips to capture either of those markets, so I doubt after one investment sinkhole they'd try it again. Actually they wouldn't have to redesign the chips for Peercoin, but Peercoin's network punishes you for mining by lowering the reward as you keep going. Making large scale mining on Peercoin a bad investment.

I think that having bitcoin crash just because a large company gets involved in mining would make it nearly impossible for bitcoin alternatives to make it to mainstream popularity. Eventually, if bitcoin gains legitimacy, I could envision the largest hardware companies, and banks controlling the vast majority of the network.

The exchange rate at that given time. If you didn't know, the exchange rate is driven entirely by supply and demand. There is no set dollar to bitcoin value and bitcoin has no consumer index value because there aren't any items priced in bitcoin.

I think that having bitcoin crash just because a large company gets involved in mining would make it nearly impossible for bitcoin alternatives to make it to mainstream popularity. Eventually, if bitcoin gains legitimacy, I could envision the largest hardware companies, and banks controlling the vast majority of the network.

Large hardware companies and banks won't take any action until bitcoin is right in their face. They'll ignore it until it is far too late. The logical thing to do would be to crush it now, yes, but look at Blockbuster, who saw Netflix coming for miles away and didn't do squat until it steamrolled them. Bureaucracies are slow to react and technology moves fast.

The US Law Library of Congress Global Research Center has published a short report on how other governments are treating Bitcoin to summarize the situation and better ascertain how Congress should feel about Bitcoin.

Also, this for people who still might not understand what Bitcoin really is, Andreas Antonopoulos explains it in these quotes much better than I ever can or will:

The creator called himself by a surname (Satoshi Nakamoto) and claimed it was an experiment. No one ever found out who it really was and I can't even say that it really was an experiment. For all I know this is all a plot by the NSA.

Depending on someone not doing something that they very easily could is not very good protection. Bill Gates could easily invest to cause Bitcoin to fail for no reason other than he doesn't like it (as an example).

Depending on someone not doing something that they very easily could is not very good protection.

I'm not depending on them not doing it. Did you know someone can sneak up behind you at just about any point in the day and slice your throat with a kitchen knife? You're not depending on other people to not do that, you know it has an inconsequential chance of happening.